Its quite some time since I last visited the Lions den mainly due to the ipersonal nsults and the playing the man not the ball tactics employed by the usual culprits.

For example this one from Bushwacker:-

Quote:

A complaint from a troofer about critics leaving questions answered? That is funny! Excellent bullsh1tting, James!

I eagerly look forward to you putting forward the first complete and coherent account from a troofer of what happened on 9/11, or will you duck back into the "That's why we need a new enquiry" bunker?

I support the demand for a full professional independent inquiry into exposing what really did happen on 911.

I cannot accept/believe the official conspiracy theory until I have seen EVIDENCE to substantaite it. For example pictures of Flight 77 going into the Pentagon taken by the authorities CCTV cameras.

My understanding was that the purpose of Critics corner(started in July 2006) was to provide those who believed that the Official conspiracy theory was the truth with the opportunity to produce EVIDENCE.

If any such evidence has appeared here please could someone flag it up on this thread for me to assess. _________________Pikey

Critics corner is a great place to test your theories out. So far, on a scale of one to 10, I haven't seen an alternative theory that would score above 1.

Until you come up with something coherent, logical, plausible, and consistent with the evidence, your smug confidence isn't worth anything. Nobody ever convinced the grassy knoll people, but so what? Is there consensus on anything in this world?_________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

I support the demand for a full professional independent inquiry into exposing what really did happen on 911.

I cannot accept/believe the official conspiracy theory until I have seen EVIDENCE to substantaite it. For example pictures of Flight 77 going into the Pentagon taken by the authorities CCTV cameras.

To me this is not a justifyable position - do we really have a world where nothing officially happens unless it was caught on TV camera? You are actually lending tacit support to a big brother culture where CCTV is on every corner. If, as seems highly likely, no footage exists of an actual crash, does it really follow that the crash never occured?

In terms of the Pentagon, there are plenty of first responders and direct witnesses to the crash (despite disagreements over the flightpath). There are a multitude of people you could talk to who helped recover human remains and wreckage from that site. To claim that no evidence exists of the crash is utterly preposterous in my opinion.

There is NOT ONE WITNESS who claims the plane didn't hit the building, and ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE supports the scenario that it did. Yet an 'independent' enquiry is required?

Quote:

My understanding was that the purpose of Critics corner(started in July 2006) was to provide those who believed that the Official conspiracy theory was the truth with the opportunity to produce EVIDENCE.

I use critics corner as an opportunity to point out the shortcomings in the truth movement's approach.

No matter what you say about the official theory being the 'conspiracy theory' the fact remains that the vast majority of the public accept the official theory, so the ball remains in the court of the truth movement to make a persuasive argument otherwise. On a forum like this it is easy to forget that the conspiracy that so many of you assume to be the truth, is in fact considered in the real world to be an outlandish theory.

Quote:

If any such evidence has appeared here please could someone flag it up on this thread for me to assess.

Well, for my part I have taken part in three threads.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12115
- Where I challenged anyone in the truth movement to prove the allegation that they have been making for many years, that the twin towers collapses were impossible in regard to the laws of physics. We have heard for years that the collapses violated basic laws of physics, Newtons laws etc. They clearly did not.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12873
- Where I suggest a Mark Roberts debunking video as good viewing. I listed the points he makes in the video, and despite a complaint over his methods and some general abuse towards Roberts, nobody has yet disproved a single point that he makes in the video.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12091
- A pentagon thread. It appears truthers have either been misled or are confused over what the flight data recorder evidence actually proves. There is actually no evidence that disproves the official theory here - even the witnesses who suggest a different flightpath are unanimous that the plane hit the pentagon.

Critics corner is a great place to test your theories out. So far, on a scale of one to 10, I haven't seen an alternative theory that would score above 1.

Until you come up with something coherent, logical, plausible, and consistent with the evidence, your smug confidence isn't worth anything. Nobody ever convinced the grassy knoll people, but so what? Is there consensus on anything in this world?

Well fortunately for us, your opinion is just that. Those challenging the official truth have no need to present an alternative theory, merely to present the evidence that shreds the official fairytale. Or should that be fairytales, since the official version has changed so often

Out of interest what do you score the official version and which version do you consider definitive?

On a forum like this it is easy to forget that the conspiracy that so many of you assume to be the truth, is in fact considered in the real world to be an outlandish theory.

The truth is the truth and not a popularity contest. That said you greatly underplay the support 9/11 truth has in 'the real world'.

Now I might dedicate the time to engage with your arguments more if your opinion counted for something beyond just another statistic in a popularity contest. Now unless you have a role in public life that has some significance to 9/11 I have little motive to convince you of anything although personally how anyone can watch Press for Truth or have followed the families campaign for an investigation and then seen how the Bush/Zelikow conducted that investigation and then be satisfied with the official explanations is beyond me, but hey each to their own. You are free to accept the version peddled by a bunch of war criminals.

The current official theory (blink and there'll be a new one) of the events of 9/11 is a theory, and as "critics" (i.e. people who support it to such an extent that you use your free time defending it online) you don't have to support it with evidence, but your position is flimsy if you refuse to.

Take WTC7 as an example - there is no "alternate" theory of what happened to WTC7 - there is ONE independent theory (that it was destroyed by controlled demolition) and an official hypothesis (this is being charitable - "statement" is probably closer).

As you no doubt realise in order to be a theory it needs to be a testable hypothesis of how one series of events led to another; in this case how explosives led to the straight down collapse of a building. This is testable and indeed in CAD has been tested - break columns and you will be able to make an identical building fall in exactly the same way. Several qualified independent experts have also weighed in working theoretically and said much the same - looking at the building plans Danny Jowenko was able to say quite matter of factly the order of demolition inside the building which would lead to a collapse with the features we see.

This does not prove that this happened per se but it is a working and testable theory in which the process could be repeated on an infinite number of identical buildings with the same results everytime, thereby proving that controlled demolition could have caused the WTC7 collapse.

While with the official account we have no theory. We have nothing near proof that fire and debris damage could cause the collapse we saw. Our hypopothesis here simply says "there were fires for six or so hours, and there was some damage we could see, and we can speculate as much damage as we want in the unphotographed area (so let's say it was all scooped out) - the building then collapsed. Therefore the first caused the second".

This is not a theory at all since in all the time waiting for it there has been no attempt to explain how the first set of events (the fire and debris damage) could lead to the second (the collapse we actually saw - straight down, high speed, into its own footprint) and therefore the theory cannot be tested by CAD or otherwise. Since no one has ever put together a model of how damage primarily to one side of a building and limited (or even to be generous "raging inferno") fires could lead to the straight down collapse we saw, we cannot even theoretically try to reproduce the effects. It is nothing. Barely even a hypothesis.

So despite your trying to paint yourselves as rationalists, you believe a statement with no reasoning beyond "one thing preceeded the other, therefore the first thing caused the other" this is not a theory - it is known as a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc logical falacy, and is one of the oldest sloppy arguments in the book._________________

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12091
- A pentagon thread. It appears truthers have either been misled or are confused over what the flight data recorder evidence actually proves. There is actually no evidence that disproves the official theory here - even the witnesses who suggest a different flightpath are unanimous that the plane hit the pentagon.

Alex, how does the FDR evidence prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? After all, this is the point of Pikey's thread. Do you believe that an analysis of the data which indicates that the plane was not low enough to hit the building and not on the right flight-path to match the evidence somehow adds credibility to the official account?

Likewise, how do the eye-witnesses who report a different flight-path tie in with evidence of the light-poles? Or did the light-poles just coincidentally topple over at roughly the same time. How do you use their testimonies to back up the official account?

It seems to me that there are in fact three main aspects of 9/11 that can be considered:

1. Why the buildings fell down, which is the matter mostly discussed here. With the NIST Report on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 we have an extremely detailed analysis of the available evidence and a conclusion based on it. This was written by a variety of experts, many outside the US government, and is the best investigation anyone is going to get. The truth movement has not managed to refute any part of it, all they can say is that they disagree with the conclusions. However, contrary to how Ian would like the movement to operate, many alternative theories are put forward. Some are simply ludicrous, NPT, beam weapons and nuclear bombs, while others are merely totally implausible, explosives and/or thermite planted in the towers, but there is no evidence for any of them that withstands examination. Notably some theories have been effectively abandoned along the way, pods on the planes for instance, and it seems fewer truthers are now arguing that no plane hit the Pentagon.
As Stefan points out above, we are still waiting the NIST report on WTC7, the subject of much discussion.

2. How the planes were directed into the buildings. For this, the official story relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, a rather less satisfactory document than the NIST Reports, but which nevertheless builds up a full account of the hijackers' operations, supported by a reasonable body of evidence. While routinely ridiculing this account, truthers have not actually managed to disprove any of it, and largely seem to have lost interest in suggesting alternatives in any depth, merely talking vaguely of remote control.

3. Why the US government failed to prevent the attacks. This is very likely the aspect the administration was most concerned about, and the reason they resisted the establishment of a 9/11 commission, and it is the area where the Commission Report is least satisfactory. This is the area the 9/11 families are most interested in, and the area truthers are not interested in at all, because of their core belief that elements within the administration were responsible for 9/11.

We thus have the bizarre situation that truthers spend nearly all their time on the aspect in which they have absolutely zero prospect of success, disproving the NIST Reports to the extent that a fresh enquiry is ordered. If instead they tackled aspect 3 as above, they would be tackling the area in which the 9/11 Commission Report is weakest, an area where the former chairman and deputy say they were lied to, an area where they would get solid support from the families, and an area where they stand at least some chance of a new administration wanting a new enquiry.

Alex, how does the FDR evidence prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? After all, this is the point of Pikey's thread. Do you believe that an analysis of the data which indicates that the plane was not low enough to hit the building and not on the right flight-path to match the evidence somehow adds credibility to the official account?

Likewise, how do the eye-witnesses who report a different flight-path tie in with evidence of the light-poles? Or did the light-poles just coincidentally topple over at roughly the same time. How do you use their testimonies to back up the official account?

The raw FDR data does not show a different flightpath - it shows the official theory flightpath. There is a question mark over the height readings though - nobody seems to be in the position to explain how we are to interpret this data, and how reliable it is, or how prone to error.

The 3 citgo eye-witnesses don't report one different flight-path, they describe 3 different ones. Clearly other witnesses support the official flight-path (the ones by the lightpoles for example), although these witnesses have yet to appear on youtube in a truther video. All agree the plane hit the building. Given the other physical evidence of the angle in which whatever hit the building hit the building, and the lightpoles and fdr data etc, I go with the official theory on the available evidence.

I repeat, NO WITNESS has yet said that the plane didn't hit the building. So did the plane hit the building? - of course it bloody well did! I'm tired of going over this pentagon evidence time and time again - how can anyone of sound mind believe anything other than the OT at this stage?

Alex, how does the FDR evidence prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? After all, this is the point of Pikey's thread. Do you believe that an analysis of the data which indicates that the plane was not low enough to hit the building and not on the right flight-path to match the evidence somehow adds credibility to the official account?

Likewise, how do the eye-witnesses who report a different flight-path tie in with evidence of the light-poles? Or did the light-poles just coincidentally topple over at roughly the same time. How do you use their testimonies to back up the official account?

The raw FDR data does not show a different flightpath - it shows the official theory flightpath. There is a question mark over the height readings though - nobody seems to be in the position to explain how we are to interpret this data, and how reliable it is, or how prone to error.

The 3 citgo eye-witnesses don't report one different flight-path, they describe 3 different ones. Clearly other witnesses support the official flight-path (the ones by the lightpoles for example), although these witnesses have yet to appear on youtube in a truther video. All agree the plane hit the building. Given the other physical evidence of the angle in which whatever hit the building hit the building, and the lightpoles and fdr data etc, I go with the official theory on the available evidence.

I repeat, NO WITNESS has yet said that the plane didn't hit the building. So did the plane hit the building? - of course it bloody well did! I'm tired of going over this pentagon evidence time and time again - how can anyone of sound mind believe anything other than the OT at this stage?

So you agree the FDR does not prove the official story and the various oddities of the raw data raise the suspicion that it may not be genuine. However nobody "official" will comment so there you are - you are 0/1.

The plane is observed via the CCTV images to be flying level when it hits the Pentagon and the punchout hole backs this up. However the FDR shows the plane descending and by the time it would have hit the final light pole there would be no time to pull up and hit the building on a level. If the FDR is incorrect and the plane was flying level - then hitting the light poles on the level would not have the plane hitting at the bottom of the Pentagon. So which part of this is faked? Or do you shy away from the detail and prefer the more broadbrush approach aka the "I'm easily fooled" tack.

Re: witnesses. The allegation is that a terrorist event was staged at the Pentagon, meaning there will be witnesses planted who may not be telling the whole truth - or may in fact be lying. Hence the Citgo witnesses and a few others. None of them choose the flight path of the light poles. Of course witnesses differ in the exact path they draw but when given the choice between left and right of the Citgo, they all have chosen the north side. Why would that be? Even the guy in the heliport had the plane coming in over the Navy Annex, to the right of the Citgo and he had a pretty good view.

To overcome those witnesses and provide your proof, you'd need some witnesses to state that they saw the poles struck - saw the taxi hit etc - while providing information that shows they were there at the right time to see it (for example their car featuring in the many photographs) and their story being straight. So no proof there yet.

Maybe you have some indisputable photographic evidence to put this beyond reasonable doubt?

Yes but this is the infinite argumentativeness approach - randomly throwing out eyewitness testimony, accepting some parts of some peoples eyewitness accounts but rejecting the parts you don't like, trying to create all kinds of confusion to obscure the one consistent fact - nobody saw the plane miss the pentagon or anything else hit the pentagon, and the witnesses say they saw the plane hit the pentagon. You seem to believe you can put aside that fact and focus on something else. This is before we even get to the physical evidence, of which there is plenty.

Meanwhile you can't even come up with an alternative theory which you are willing to defend, or explain why on earth someone would go to so much trouble to make it look like a plane hit the pentagon without having a plane hit the pentagon, seeing as a) they intended to attack the pentagon and b) they had a plane they wanted to make disappear headed right for it and c) all other parts of the plan involved planes hitting buildings._________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

3. Why the US government failed to prevent the attacks. This is very likely the aspect the administration was most concerned about, and the reason they resisted the establishment of a 9/11 commission, and it is the area where the Commission Report is least satisfactory. This is the area the 9/11 families are most interested in, and the area truthers are not interested in at all, because of their core belief that elements within the administration were responsible for 9/11.

We thus have the bizarre situation that truthers spend nearly all their time on the aspect in which they have absolutely zero prospect of success, disproving the NIST Reports to the extent that a fresh enquiry is ordered. If instead they tackled aspect 3 as above, they would be tackling the area in which the 9/11 Commission Report is weakest, an area where the former chairman and deputy say they were lied to, an area where they would get solid support from the families, and an area where they stand at least some chance of a new administration wanting a new enquiry.

However, I think it unlikely that truthers will accept my advice!

It might surprise you but I agree. Your third area is the strongest which is why as a campaign we recommend journalists and MPs watch Press for Truth in order to familiarise themselves with the case to reinvestigate.

Needless to say, the US authorities intelligence and defense failures certainly do not exclude MIHOP theories but they are the place to start IMO.

It is not so much that campaigners ignore this area, but that our critics prefer to avoid this area (since they know it is where they are on the weakest ground). Most campaigning websites/leaflets/films and so forth do prominently mention the intelligence and defense failures. But it is standard policy of disinformationists to focus their arguments on strawmen theories

Yes but this is the infinite argumentativeness approach - randomly throwing out eyewitness testimony, accepting some parts of some peoples eyewitness accounts but rejecting the parts you don't like, trying to create all kinds of confusion to obscure the one consistent fact - nobody saw the plane miss the pentagon or anything else hit the pentagon

IMO witnesses accounts cannot be used to prove anything, they can only be secondary to what the evidence shows, that includes all that say a plane hit.

if the evidence says a plane hit, and most witnesses say the plane hit they only back up what the evidence points to, they do not prove it, the evidence at the scene does that.

so imo it is pointless to argue about witnesses.

none of them prove it just by saying it.

and yes the same is true of those who heard booms, which people then take to mean bomb. without proof of a bomb the witnesses saying boom is simply secondary. its funny how critics want to listen to witnesses who say they saw a plane at the pentagon, but not witnesses who say they heard explosions well after the plane strike in different areas of the buildings and saw flashes at the wtc's, even though there are numerous amounts of them.

either we listen to witness or we don't. make your minds up.

if we do then watch these.

firstlink, 503 first responder accounts, he found out of the 503, 10 gave descriptions that support the offical account, 118 gave accounts that supported the CD scenerio. and people who described explosions and interpreted them as explosions/blasts/ implosion were counted, anyone saying boom/bang etc were discounted. the remaining unaccounted for support neither scenerio or their accounts could be interpreted as anything.

i can 100% gaurentee i will get a response to this post with no critics actually taking the time to hear the case.

any rational person would include CD as a possible scenerio of investigastion going by the collapse, visual evidence, speed of collapse, witnesses, first responders, and photo graphic evidence of the rubble pile(which large parts of, was shipped of and melted down, before anybody could get a proper look at it).

none of this proves CD, only a investigastion can do that, but it does show there is reason to believe it is a possible scenerio. and it is not irrational or stupid to include. i can fully understand however people trying to make out its irrational or that people are wacko conspiracy theorists if CD did take place, and their was an effort to keep the evidence out of the public eye, and the mainstream media ignoring it and not being intrested in entertaining the fact for the same reasons.

Quote:

nobody saw the plane miss the pentagon or anything else hit the pentagon

firstlink, 503 first responder accounts, he found out of the 503, 10 gave descriptions that support the offical account, 118 gave accounts that supported the CD scenerio. and people who described explosions and interpreted them as explosions/blasts/ implosion were counted, anyone saying boom/bang etc were discounted. the remaining unaccounted for support neither scenerio or their accounts could be interpreted as anything.

You play down the importance of witness accounts, then link to this?

I have been through these accounts on another thread - in some cases I actually referred to the full statements to put the quotes in context. Of the 503, NONE support the idea of a CD. Many use the word "explosive" or "bomb" to describe the sound of collapse or impact. Far more describe the collapse as a rumble than as a bomb if memory serves.

I repeat, NONE of those witnesses support the idea of a CD in their accounts. To cherry-pick words and phrases from their statements and parade those as evidence of some discrepancy in what they were describing is childish, manipulative nonsense.

firstlink, 503 first responder accounts, he found out of the 503, 10 gave descriptions that support the offical account, 118 gave accounts that supported the CD scenerio. and people who described explosions and interpreted them as explosions/blasts/ implosion were counted, anyone saying boom/bang etc were discounted. the remaining unaccounted for support neither scenerio or their accounts could be interpreted as anything.

So "sounded like a bomb going off" supports the CD scenario? That is incredibly dishonest. How many of these people are actually on the record saying they think 911 was a CD? I'd bet zero, not one single one six years later. Why is the troof movement not trying to contact these people instead of dragging them involuntarily into supporting your conspiracy theory?_________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

firstlink, 503 first responder accounts, he found out of the 503, 10 gave descriptions that support the offical account, 118 gave accounts that supported the CD scenerio. and people who described explosions and interpreted them as explosions/blasts/ implosion were counted, anyone saying boom/bang etc were discounted. the remaining unaccounted for support neither scenerio or their accounts could be interpreted as anything.

So "sounded like a bomb going off" supports the CD scenario? That is incredibly dishonest. How many of these people are actually on the record saying they think 911 was a CD? I'd bet zero, not one single one six years later. Why is the troof movement not trying to contact these people instead of dragging them involuntarily into supporting your conspiracy theory?

one of two things is true here, either you cannot read or you did'nt watch the videos at all and presumed.

anybody saying it sounded like a bomb would of been discounted, but i did explain this and you would of found this out if you had looked.

your the one saying witnesses count if in the majority.

Quote:

randomly throwing out eyewitness testimony, accepting some parts of some peoples eyewitness accounts but rejecting the parts you don't like, trying to create all kinds of confusion to obscure the one consistent fact

you doing exactly what you accuse others of. funny how your opinon changes when its the other way around is'nt it.

firstlink, 503 first responder accounts, he found out of the 503, 10 gave descriptions that support the offical account, 118 gave accounts that supported the CD scenerio. and people who described explosions and interpreted them as explosions/blasts/ implosion were counted, anyone saying boom/bang etc were discounted. the remaining unaccounted for support neither scenerio or their accounts could be interpreted as anything.

You play down the importance of witness accounts, then link to this?

I have been through these accounts on another thread - in some cases I actually referred to the full statements to put the quotes in context. Of the 503, NONE support the idea of a CD. Many use the word "explosive" or "bomb" to describe the sound of collapse or impact. Far more describe the collapse as a rumble than as a bomb if memory serves.

I repeat, NONE of those witnesses support the idea of a CD in their accounts. To cherry-pick words and phrases from their statements and parade those as evidence of some discrepancy in what they were describing is childish, manipulative nonsense.

the purpose was to demonstrate how critics like to count witnesses when they support their view but then throw a tantrum when they don't.

the rest of what you said proves you did'nt watch the videos, otherwise you would not be able to make this claim

It might surprise you but I agree. Your third area is the strongest which is why as a campaign we recommend journalists and MPs watch Press for Truth in order to familiarise themselves with the case to reinvestigate.

Needless to say, the US authorities intelligence and defense failures certainly do not exclude MIHOP theories but they are the place to start IMO.

It is not so much that campaigners ignore this area, but that our critics prefer to avoid this area (since they know it is where they are on the weakest ground). Most campaigning websites/leaflets/films and so forth do prominently mention the intelligence and defense failures. But it is standard policy of disinformationists to focus their arguments on strawmen theories

I think that's utterly unfair, Ian. I have no problem with rational discussion of the US preparedness and response to the 9/11 attacks, and would not seek to criticise anyone with a genuine interest in that topic as long as they are realistic about it. If the end result is an admittance or uncovering of incompetence, or LIHOP or MIHOP then some good has come of it.

What I object to is jumping to conclusions about LIHOP or MIHOP when no actual evidence supports either. That is what I seek to criticise - I don't see how that makes me either a disinformationist (?) or an attacker of strawmen theories.

What you are principally talking about is the strategy by which the truth movement can make strides in the media and the public eye. Unfortunately the truth movement is almost exclusively populated by people with wacky ideas about LIHOP and MIHOP that will alienate moderates like myself. At the end of the day I don't think the truth movement is led or populated by people who want to discuss point 3 on Bushy's list - I think they love the idea of NWO and conspiracy, and have already leapt to the conclusion before any further discussion of the evidence.

the purpose was to demonstrate how critics like to count witnesses when they support their view but then throw a tantrum when they don't.

Unfair criticism in my opinion - answer Pepik's criticism before you start throwing out criticism of witnesses. It is the truth movement that assumes that many of the witnesses are paid stooges, or are being quiet on the murder of thousands of Americans because of fears for their own security! I have made no attacks on the CITGO witnesses and neither has any critic of the truth movement to my knowledge - I accept that their accounts are given in good faith. I take offence that I or the other critics on this forum are in some way ignoring their evidence.

The trouble that we all have, in that particular case, is that physical evidence and other witnesses side with a different general flightpath than the CITGO witnesses. Now the standard truther response seems to be to assume that the witnesses to the official flightpath (and ALL of the physical evidence that supports that flightpath) have somehow been faked as part of a conspiracy. Without any proof to support this conclusion, it remains an utterly irrational conclusion to reach. Any independent inquiry looking at the same evidence would reach the same obvious conclusion - the strong likelihood is that the official flightpath is correct.

I repeat - NO WITNESSES and NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE indicate that the plane didn't hit the pentagon, so we should all be able to agree that it did. Given that indisputable fact, what exactly are truthers trying to argue with the Pentagon crash? I don't think they even know...

In terms of the 503 witnesses in New York, NONE OF THEM support the idea of a controlled demolition, though small quotes from within their accounts may be used to support the theory of a CD.

Last edited by Alex_V on Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

the purpose was to demonstrate how critics like to count witnesses when they support their view but then throw a tantrum when they don't.

Unfair criticism in my opinion. I have made no attacks on the CITGO witnesses and neither has any critic of the truth movement to my knowledge - I accept that their accounts are given in good faith. I take offence that I or the other critics on this forum are in some way ignoring their evidence.

The trouble that we all have, in that particular case, is that physical evidence and other witnesses side with a different general flightpath than the CITGO witnesses. Now the standard truther response seems to be to assume that the witnesses to the official flightpath (and ALL of the physical evidence that supports that flightpath) have somehow been faked as part of a conspiracy. Without any proof to support this conclusion, it remains an utterly irrational conclusion to reach. Any independent inquiry looking at the same evidence would reach the same obvious conclusion - the strong likelihood is that the official flightpath is correct.

I repeat - NO WITNESSES and NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE indicate that the plane didn't hit the pentagon, so we should all be able to agree that it did. Given that indisputable fact, what exactly are truthers trying to argue with the Pentagon crash?

In terms of the 503 witnesses in New York, NONE OF THEM support the idea of a controlled demolition, though small quotes from within them may be used to support the theory of a CD.

my god! alex wake up for christ sake. i was replying to pepiks comment, then you but in, then i explain what my point was, then you say im accusing you. god sake.

pepik wrote this!

Quote:

randomly throwing out eyewitness testimony, accepting some parts of some peoples eyewitness accounts but rejecting the parts you don't like, trying to create all kinds of confusion to obscure the one consistent fact

i then pointed out numerous witnesses hearing and feeling explosion as well as seeing flashes.

then pepik discounts them by doing what he says truthers do.

Quote:

So "sounded like a bomb going off" supports the CD scenario? That is incredibly dishonest. How many of these people are actually on the record saying they think 911 was a CD? I'd bet zero, not one single one six years later. Why is the troof movement not trying to contact these people instead of dragging them involuntarily into supporting your conspiracy theory?

this is what i was pointing out. please forgive me, for some strange reason i had presumed you had read posts and watched the links to understand what my point was.

imo witnesses prove nothing on their own, im just pointing out how critics do what pepik says, even pepik himself. ie:

Quote:

randomly throwing out eyewitness testimony, accepting some parts of some peoples eyewitness accounts but rejecting the parts you don't like, trying to create all kinds of confusion to obscure the one consistent fact

It's an emotive subject, but I have to side with Pepik here - what has been done with those witness accounts is scandalous. McQueen and Griffin's use of those accounts to try and support a CD is a disgrace in my opinion, and it's one of those areas where I really get angry. Read any one of those 503 accounts and tell me that they support the idea of a CD!

We're back to 'affirming the consequent' really though aren't we? They saw a flash, and a CD might have a flash, so it's a CD. They heard a bomb sound, and CDs might have a bomb sound, so it's a CD. He claims a different flightpath, and an inside job might have included a different flightpath, so it was an inside job. If you see enough of these leaps of faith in print or on youtube, then you might start wrongly believing it was definitely a conspiracy.

It's an emotive subject, but I have to side with Pepik here - what has been done with those witness accounts is scandalous. McQueen and Griffin's use of those accounts to try and support a CD is a disgrace in my opinion, and it's one of those areas where I really get angry. Read any one of those 503 accounts and tell me that they support the idea of a CD!

We're back to 'affirming the consequent' really though aren't we? They saw a flash, and a CD might have a flash, so it's a CD. They heard a bomb sound, and CDs might have a bomb sound, so it's a CD. He claims a different flightpath, and an inside job might have included a different flightpath, so it was an inside job. If you see enough of these leaps of faith in print or on youtube, then you might start wrongly believing it was definitely a conspiracy.

are you randomly throwing out parts of the witness testimony? accepting some parts but not the parts you don't like?

if so you proved the point i was trying to make all along!

as for the witness testimony watch the video for * sake instead of guessing. clearly some firemen likened the collapse to a controlled demoliton. more than what you think.

regardless my only point was to prove critics throw out what they don't like, but then accuse truthers of throwing out what they don't like.

It's an emotive subject, but I have to side with Pepik here - what has been done with those witness accounts is scandalous. McQueen and Griffin's use of those accounts to try and support a CD is a disgrace in my opinion, and it's one of those areas where I really get angry. Read any one of those 503 accounts and tell me that they support the idea of a CD!

We're back to 'affirming the consequent' really though aren't we? They saw a flash, and a CD might have a flash, so it's a CD. They heard a bomb sound, and CDs might have a bomb sound, so it's a CD. He claims a different flightpath, and an inside job might have included a different flightpath, so it was an inside job. If you see enough of these leaps of faith in print or on youtube, then you might start wrongly believing it was definitely a conspiracy.

totally fine when its a witness supporting your theory though is'nt it?

he saw something that LOOKED LIKE a plane.

he heard a sound that SOUNDED like pancaking.

she saw SOMETHING enter the building.

either witness testimony is valid or not. you car'nt have it both ways.

as for the witness testimony watch the video for * sake instead of guessing. clearly some firemen likened the collapse to a controlled demoliton. more than what you think.

LIKENED. But can you prove they think it was a CD? Has anyone followed up? Asked them? NO? THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Also, I am not watching your nonsense videos. I don't have unlimited time for this, if it isn't something i can skim through and read, forget it.

Finally, what I don't expect is universal 100% agreement among all eyewitnesses. That's not real life, if it were nobody would ever be convicted of anything - the unreliable nature of witnesses is well known in the court system. Its a (deliberately) impossible standard which troofers try to promote.

I am not ignoring "some" witnesses, I am looking at the testimony as a whole. Lots of people saw it hit the Pentagon, none saw it miss. That's evidence. A lot better evidence that misquoting people or providing their views for them._________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

LIKENED. But can you prove they think it was a CD? Has anyone followed up? Asked them? NO? THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

no i cannot prove it was CD, but that dos'nt deflect from the fact that witnesses there felt and heard what THEY(not me) descirbe as explosions.
just like pentagon witnesses describe(what they saw) as a plane or SOMETHING that looked like a jet.

if you were not so busy putting words into my mouth and presuming what i think, you may of noticed by now i have stated, witnesses prove nothing.

they only confirm what the evidence at the scene suggests or proves.

my only point in linking witnesses saying something i know you hate, is the fact that you instantly discount them and throw them away, which is something you accused truthers as doing.

Quote:

Also, I am not watching your nonsense videos.

they are not my videos.

Quote:

I am not ignoring "some" witnesses, I am looking at the testimony as a whole.

apart from at the wtc's?

Quote:

Lots of people saw it hit the Pentagon, none saw it miss.

lots of people saw flashes and heard secondary explosions unrelated to the plane strikes and on different floors. your point is?

Quote:

That's evidence.

unless its at the wtc?

Quote:

A lot better evidence that misquoting people or providing their views for them.

reading what people said word for word is not misqouting. your providing views of pentagon witnesses by saying they support the offical version, yet you don't know this, have you been and interviewed all of them?

I think we have set a new standard for ridiculous arguments - you are saying that when I quote someone saying they saw a plane hit the pentagon, that unfairly suggests they support the official story? The official story is that a plane hit the pentagon, what the hell are you talking about?

Quote:

no i cannot prove it was CD, but that dos'nt deflect from the fact that witnesses there felt and heard what THEY(not me) descirbe as explosions.

Can you produce any who can actually confirm that they think the noise was caused by a bomb? Because nobody is denying that loud noises were heard in the aftermath of the plane hitting the tower and the raging fires, in fact misquoting people on exactly this topic has been going on for about six years now. How many of these people can you confirm Marky? 2? 1? Zero?

Quote:

if you were not so busy putting words into my mouth and presuming what i think, you may of noticed by now i have stated, witnesses prove nothing.

That's your view, not mine.

Quote:

they only confirm what the evidence at the scene suggests or proves.

You mean like the plane wreckage? The DNA of the passengers?

Quote:

my only point in linking witnesses saying something i know you hate, is the fact that you instantly discount them and throw them away, which is something you accused truthers as doing.

EXACTLY the opposite of what I just said. I said eyewitnesses http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm cannot be expected to universally give identical accounts, that just isn't human nature. So pointing to differing witness acccounts as a source of grave doubt, as if 911 were somehow unprecedented in this regard, is just standard troofer dishonesty. HOWEVER, when the bulk of the testimony supports the basic fact, that a plane hit the pentagon, and rejects the fact that it didn't, or that something else did, this is meaningful. If ten witnesses say someone stabbed another person, we may not be sure exactly where they were standing at the time or be sure they can identify the right attacker among several similar looking people, but we can be sure a talking duck didnt mince them with a chainsaw, which is approximately how ridiculous your argument is.

Quote:

apart from at the wtc's?

Again, nobody says there were no loud bangs or things sounding like bombs, you just pretend we do for convenience._________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

Last edited by pepik on Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:10 am; edited 1 time in total

The plane is observed via the CCTV images to be flying level when it hits the Pentagon and the punchout hole backs this up. However the FDR shows the plane descending and by the time it would have hit the final light pole there would be no time to pull up and hit the building on a level. If the FDR is incorrect and the plane was flying level - then hitting the light poles on the level would not have the plane hitting at the bottom of the Pentagon. So which part of this is faked? Or do you shy away from the detail and prefer the more broadbrush approach aka the "I'm easily fooled" tack.

Alex, this question still stands - this thread is about you providing evidence not for relentlessly stating the same thing over and over. Now I know you are much more comfortable shooting down ideas but why don't you give this one a go. Prove that all parts of the story are consistent. That the FDR data is genuine, the light poles were struck and that the plane could fly level into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first.

If it happened, it should be easy to proof. Feel free to use photographs of the Pentagon damage pre-collapse if you think it helps.

If the end result is an admittance or uncovering of incompetence, or LIHOP or MIHOP then some good has come of it.

What I object to is jumping to conclusions about LIHOP or MIHOP when no actual evidence supports either. That is what I seek to criticise - I don't see how that makes me either a disinformationist (?) or an attacker of strawmen theories.

The numerous previous conspiracies involving the US automatically led me to assume that LIHOP/MIHOP scenarios were plausible for 9/11 even as they were trying to sell me the 'official story'

Once the official story and the evidence of the literally UNBELIEVABLE intelligence and defense 'failures' came out, then my suspicions were confirmed to my satisfaction.

Now this isn't 'jumping to conclusions', but it is starting with presumptions which analysis of the evidence confirmed.

In my mind there is v little difference between intentional LIHOP and MIHOP. You seem to underplay the significance of a MIHOP conclusion ("some good will come of it"). Think of all the governments, journalists and so called experts whose credibility would be in tatters and who would have a great deal of explaining to do. I think you underestimate what this would mean.

When I criticise disinformationists for picking on strawmen and ignoring the really incriminating and incontrovertible evidence I'm referring to our critics in the media mostly and not you personally.

I think we have set a new standard for ridiculous arguments - you are saying that when I quote someone saying they saw a plane hit the pentagon, that unfairly suggests they support the official story? The official story is that a plane hit the pentagon, what the hell are you talking about?

Quote:

no i cannot prove it was CD, but that dos'nt deflect from the fact that witnesses there felt and heard what THEY(not me) descirbe as explosions.

Can you produce any who can actually confirm that they think the noise was caused by a bomb? Because nobody is denying that loud noises were heard in the aftermath of the plane hitting the tower and the raging fires, in fact misquoting people on exactly this topic has been going on for about six years now. How many of these people can you confirm Marky? 2? 1? Zero?

Quote:

if you were not so busy putting words into my mouth and presuming what i think, you may of noticed by now i have stated, witnesses prove nothing.

That's your view, not mine.

Quote:

they only confirm what the evidence at the scene suggests or proves.

You mean like the plane wreckage? The DNA of the passengers?

Quote:

my only point in linking witnesses saying something i know you hate, is the fact that you instantly discount them and throw them away, which is something you accused truthers as doing.

EXACTLY the opposite of what I just said. I said eyewitnesses http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htmc cannot be expected to universally give identical accounts, that just isn't human nature. So pointing to differing witness acccounts as a source of grave doubt, as if 911 were somehow unprecedented in this regard, is just standard troofer dishonesty. HOWEVER, when the bulk of the testimony supports the basic fact, that a plane hit the pentagon, and rejects the fact that it didn't, or that something else did, this is meaningful. If ten witnesses say someone stabbed another person, we may not be sure exactly where they were standing at the time or be sure they can identify the right attacker among several similar looking people, but we can be sure a talking duck didnt mince them with a chainsaw, which is approximately how ridiculous your argument is.

Quote:

apart from at the wtc's?

Again, nobody says there were no loud bangs or things sounding like bombs, you just pretend we do for convenience.

pepik wether you like it or not witnesses prove nothing, wether at the pentagon or the wtc's, wether their testimony supports or refutes the offical story.

their accounts alone prove nothing, only evidence from the scene proves wether what was said to happen is true.

you started of by accusing truthers of only taking certain witness accounts and throwing out others, the ONLY reason for me linking witnesses was to get your reaction.

which showed you do exactly the same.

you cherry pick witnesses and so do no planers, and cd believers or whatever else. which is why witness accounts are usless. they can only ever be used to fit your view, which is cherry picking the ones that fit.

your mentaility of looking at the evidence is no different to anyone elses, you only hold a different view via your interpretation of that evidence. everything else you accuse truthers of you do yourself everytime. and that includes making stuff up to be seen to be right, which includes twisting peoples words and putting words into their mouths.

ive had enough of the infinite explainations that just go on and on because somebody says something or explains something, but then you just ignore it and make up what you wanted it to mean and miss the point, which leads to explaining again and again.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum